There are various versions of the Oil Depletion Protocol floating around out there on the Internet. The one I am familiar with and have copies of is the Uppsala ODP, written by Coln Campbell, former oil industry geologist. The ODP calls on importing nations to voluntarily reduce their oil imports be 2 percent annually, and for exporting nations to reduce their exports by 2 percent annually. Internally, nations could deal with the decline in oil through Domestic Tradable Quotas, or DTQs. All adults would receive oil rations, divided up equally, that they buy or sell. For consumers who use more "petro-units" than others (cab drivers, manufacturers of plastic products, etc.) that costs get passed onto secondary consumers. I'm assuming the gasoline tax/rebate system would work the same way. You can still take a cab -- but it's going to be more expensive. We can still enhance our soil with fossil fuels, but eating is going to be more costly (especially eating energy intensive food such as meat). Prices are going to go up eventually anyway. It's a matter of whether those prices are market "regulated" (i.e., private industry gets to gouge us) or whether we collectively manage those price increases. And personally, I probably favor a gas tax that's a percentage, rather than a set price. If we ask for $5 a gallon, we'll probably get less than one cent (what Schwarzenegger is currently proposing). But if we work for a percentage, like 2 percent, going up annually to 15 percent or something, the amount that is collected will increase as the price of gasoline goes up. Sue -- "Jerry Path" <pjrry@igc.org> wrote: Hi Everyone, I'm okay with the presentation from someone from Bart, although the agenda seems kind of full to me. I once again probably will be having a conflict with work again. I will do my best to attend, but it may not work out - hopefully this will not go on for too long. April looks good. At any rate, I have a number of things to say about the gasoline tax - rebate proposal. These are things I want to bring up in this context because I don't think we have the time to discuss them given our agenda constraints. These are things I would like everyone to consider, especially Harold Strassner. I agree with the proposal in general and think initiating this discussion is urgent - and would want to endorse it on this basis. Many essential specifics are not addressed - and I understand that there is a process to working these out. In this spirit I have some comments, criticisms, suggestions etc. You can do with what you will, I just want to get them out there. Let me begin by saying that at first I reacted to the idea of a $5.00 tax on gasoline - diesel because I thought that this would just alienate the "average person" right off the bat and would not get anywhere. But I read it thru - thought it over and decided that the idea does have merit. However, the "average person" probably would just react - and not read it through and think it over. The powers that be are very good at seizing at some superficial aspect of an idea and using it against us. This prevents people from ever getting past the surface of an idea, and we are defeated before we begin. I think it would be better to put the emphasis on getting the concept across - that Oil corporations have externalized their costs and that we have to pay and get the idea of a tax - rebate across first. 2. Concerning the automobile driver - there are a number of drivers who don't fit into the household category - such as taxi drivers, salespeople and such. These I think would have to be dealt with differently, I don't have any ideas as to how. 3. Trucking, goods transport - Corporations have successfully externalized costs unto drivers so that drivers are in a very precarious economic situation, partly because of this drivers are a good buffer for them - drivers should be our allies but they would be extremely difficult to win over. 4. Airlines - all of transportation is in serious difficulty, I think, but airlines are the most fragile. However this problem needs to be faced eventually because airlines I'm sure are among the biggest consumers of oil. Perhaps air travel needs to be rationed, by increasing tax rates for increased travel with rebates to those with less or no travel. Public consciousness is no where near where it would have to be for this to have a chance - but material reality will not wait for this consciousness to catch up. Here again the solution needs to be a process - just is way beyond me to address. 5. Military, Government - I won't even get into this for now, but clearly they do need to get covered. 6. Farm Equipment. Being a farm boy, I have a special hatred for agribusiness. they are also at the core of the problem - pushing people off of the land, polluting and destroying it - and externalizing their costs. We need to convert to small, more local and sustainable, less energy consuming farming. And we to recover the land will require a lot of work - so the many so-called redundant workers are our potential allies here - but this is also long term. The above are some specifics, all of which would require some program of conversion away from high energy use. I see the tax - rebate proposal as being a step toward such a conversion. We are very far away from a conversion program - but it seems we need to begin to think in these terms. However even trying to think in these terms makes me feel a little crazy - because it seems so far from possibility, I have some other points, but perhaps this is enough for now. Best, Jerry Jerry Path pjrry@igc.org Why Wait? Move to EarthLink. _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo